Διαφημίσεις
Piccolo Tigre was perfectly right in his estimate of the “apathy and indifference” of the ruling classes, and in the success this attitude promised to the conspirators. No civilized modern government can be overthrown by violence if it realizes…the danger that threatens it and firmly resolves to defend itself. It is not resistance but weakness that produces revolution, for weakness invites audacity and audacity is the seance of the revolutionary spirit. “Osez!” said St. Just, “ce mot est toute la politique de la RThetavolution!” (“Dare! this word is the whole policy of revolution.”)
So while the revolutionary forces were mustering, the Government of France remained sublimely oblivious to the coming danger. On the surface few signs of popular effervescence were apparent. The incendiary doctrines of the agitators seemed to have made little headway among the great mass of the people. The peasants, indeed, with their passionate love of possession, saw little to attract them in the communal ownership of the land and continued to dig and plant with undiminished ardor. Only in the towns the fire of revolutionary Socialism was smoldering silently, unnoticed or ignored by those in power.
The government, reassured by the loyal spirit of the army and deluded by the perfect calm that reigned in the streets, made no preparations for defense. The circulation of seditious papers was known to be small, the theories of Buchez and of Louis Blanc were believed to have taken no hold on the masses; one could afford to shrug one’s shoulders at the number of their following. As to Proudhon the police had declared in 1846: “His doctrines are very dangerous, they are gun-shots at the end of them; fortunately they are not read.” Perhaps the most unconcerned person was the King himself. “No human power,” wrote M. Cuvillier Fleury, “could have made him read a page of M. Louis Blanc, of M. Pierre Leroux, of M. Buchez, or of m. Proudhon.” (Marie AmThetalie et la sociThetatTheta franTauaise en 1847, pp. 102-110; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, pp. 131-132) So with sublime insouciance the “monarchy of July” awaited the explosion.
This is not the place to relate in detail the political events which led up to the four months revolution of 1848. Ministerial corruption; always the bane of France from the first revolution onward, opposition to electoral reform, indifference to the interests of the people provided quite sufficient grounds for insurrection. In vain de Tocqueville warned the Chamber of Deputies where this state of public affairs must lead them: “My profound conviction is that we are sleeping on a volcano.” And after quoting various scandalous instances of corruption he went on to say: “It is by such acts as these that great catastrophes are prepared. Let us seek in history the efficacious causes that have taken away power from the governing classes; they lost it when they became by their egoism unworthy to retain it…The evils I point out will bring about the gravest revolutions; do you not feel by a sort of intuition that the soil of Europe trembles once more? Is there not a breath of revolution in the air?…Do you know what may happen in two years: in one year, perhaps tomorrow? …Keep your laws if you will, but for God’s sake change the spirit of the Government. That spirit leads to the abyss.” (+mile de Bonnechose, Histoire de France, ii, p. 647; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, pp. 132-133)
No truer words were ever spoken. Corrupt and selfish politicians will always be the most useful allies of Anarchists. We cannot doubt that Proudhon and Blanqui rejoiced over the callous attitude of the Government as heartily as de Tocqueville deplored it. The very real grounds for popular discontent would serve, as de Tocqueville clearly saw, to “magnify doctrines which tend to nothing less than the overthrow of all the foundations on which society rests.”
The ministerial banquet planned by the heads of the Masonic lodges (Deschamps, ii, p. 282) for the 22nd of February and forbidden by the government provided the pretext for insurrection. When in the morning of that day the obedient army of the proletariat assembled in answer to the summons of the revolutionary papers Le National and La RThetaforme, the cry of “A bas Guizot!” that rose from their ranks was less a protest against Guizot’s policy than a call to revolution for revolution’s sake. deluded by the promises of the Utopian Socialists, inflamed by the teachings of the Anarchists, it was now no longer electoral reform nor even universal suffrage that could satisfy the people; it was not a mere Republic they demanded or a change of ministry, it was the complete overthrow of the existing system of government in favor of the social millennium promised them by the theorists, and which the agitators had urged them to establish by force of arms.
The dismissal of Guizot by the King on February 23, did nothing, therefore, to allay popular agitation, and according to the usual revolutionary program the insurgents proceeded to barricade the streets and to pillage the gunsmiths’ shops.
But even then it proved difficult to bring about a conflict, for the sympathies of the bourgeoisie were still with the people, and the National Guards, seeing in the working men their brothers, showed reluctance to use force against them. (Cambridge Modern History, Vol. xi, p. 97) This feeling of camaraderie, contemptuously described by Marx as “charlatanry of general fraternity,” (Karl Marx, La Lutte des classes en France, p. 40; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 134) was dispelled by the menacing attitude the working men were persuaded to assume, and inevitably the demonstrations that followed; the hoisting of the red flag, the marching of processions among which could be seen the glint of steel and brandishing of sabres, led to a collision with the troops. In the confusion a number of the insurgents fell victims to the fire of the irritated soldiery. This skirmish, described as “the massacre of the Boulevard des Capucines,” gave the signal for revolution.
Throughout that night of February 23-24 the Secret Societies were at work issuing their orders; meanwhile Proudhon busied himself drawing up a plan of attack. (Cambridge Modern History, Vol. xi, p. 99; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 134) Dawn found the city in a state of chaos, the trees of the boulevards were broken to the ground, the paving stones torn up, excited bands of insurgents; working men of the faubourgs, students, schoolboys, deserters from the National Guard, collected around the Tuileries, shots were fired at the windows of the young princes.
This was the moment chosen by Louis Blanc and his friends to issue a protest against the employment of troops in civil commotions, which, handed from barricade to barricade, immensely emboldened the audacity of the revolutionaries, who now proceeded to seize munitions and attack the municipal Guard, killing a number of them.
The hesitating policy of the government and the declarations of the agitators inevitably affected the morale of the troops, and by the middle of the morning they ceased to offer any further resistance and left the people in possession of the field. Already Proudhon and Flocon had posted up a placard demanding the deposition of the King, and among the leaders; Caussidi re, Arago, Sobrier, and others; the word “Republic” made itself heard. In vain Louis Philippe, profiting by the error committed by his predecessor Louis XVI in precisely the same circumstances, mounted a gorgeously caparisoned horse in order to inspect the troops assembled in the Tuileries gardens and promised reforms to the excited populace; the hour of the OrlThetaaniste dynasty had struck, and at one o’clock the royal family chose the prudent course of flight.
So in the space of a few hours the monarchy was swept away and the “Social Democratic Republic” was proclaimed. (La RThetavolution de 1848, Louis Blanc, p. 23; MThetamoires de Cauusidi re, p. 62; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 135)
It is unnecessary to follow the French Revolution of 1848 through its final political stages; the election of Prince Louis NapolThetaon to the Presidency of the Republic in December of the same year, the coup d’Etat carried out by him three years later (December 2, 1851), by which the Constitution of 1848 was overthrown, and, finally the proclamation of the Empire on December 10, 1852, with the prince as NapolThetaon III at its head.
Throughout this period the fire of social revolution could only smoulder feebly and with the accession of the Emperor was temporarily extinguished in France. The r gime that followed, like that which succeeded the first French Revolution, was one of absolute repression. The Socialist leaders arrested, no less than 25,000 prisoners were taken by the Government and a great number deported without trial.
At the same time the Secret societies were put down with an iron hand, all the liberties granted to the French people, including the liberty of the press, were abolished by the Constitution of 1852, and this despotism was accepted by a majority of 7 million to 600 thousand votes. For as in 1800 the nation wearied of revolution, was ready to throw itself at the feet of a strong man who would restore order and give it peace once more.
The revolution of 1848 ended in the total defeat of the workers, and for this it is impossible to deny that the principal blame lay with the Socialist leaders; above all with Louis Blanc. It is only just to recognize the excellent intentions of the man, who devoted all his energies to the reorganization of labor on an ideal system, yet it must surely be admitted that social experiments of this kind can only be judged by results.
The scientist who fails in a laboratory experiment may be pardoned for failure, but in the case of men who juggle with human lives failure is a crime. If a duke were to invent a novel system of drainage, and, without assuring himself if its efficacy, were to install it in all his tenants’ cottages, thereby killing them off by diphtheria, he would not be regarded as a noble enthusiast whose only crime was excess of zeal, but as a criminal fool for whom no mercy should be demanded. Why then should reckless ventures, merely because they are conducted in the name of Socialism, ensure the immunity of their authors?
Louis Blanc may well have been a sincere and well-meaning man, the fact remains that through his application of impracticable schemes and obstinate belief in his own infallibility he led the working classes to disaster. No one has recognized this truth more clearly than the anarchist Proudhon, who in the following words has apportioned to this dangerous dreamer the blame he so truly deserves: “A great responsibility will rest in history on Louis Blanc. It was he who at the Luxembourg with his riddle ‘Equality, Fraternity, Liberty,’ with his abracadabra ‘Every one according to his strength, to every one according to his needs!’ began that miserable opposition of ideologies to ideas, and who roused common sense against Socialism. He thought himself the bee of the revolution and he was only the grasshopper. May he at last, after having poisoned the working men with his absurd formulas, bring to the cause of the proletariat, which on a day of error fell into his feeble hands, the idol of his abstention and his silence.” (La RThetavolution au XIXi me st cle, p. 108; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 154)
The outbreak of revolution in Paris had given the signal for European conflagration. On March 1st insurrection began in Baden, on the 12th in Vienna, on the 13th riots took place in Berlin, on the 18th a rising in Milan, on the 20th in Parma, on the 22nd a Republic was declared in Venice, on the 10th of April a Chartist demonstration was organized in London, on the 7th of May troubles began in Spain, on the 15th in Naples, and during the course of the year no less than sixty-four outbreaks of serfs occurred in Russia.
Of course, in the pages of official history we shall find no explanation of this sudden recurrence of the revolutionary epidemic, which is once more conveniently ascribed to the time-honored theory of contagious popular enthusiasm for liberty. Thus the Cambridge Modern History, describing the revolution in Germany, observes: “The grand Duchy of Baden was the natural starting-place for the revolutionary movement, which, once set on foot, seemed to progress almost automatically from State to State and town to town.”
Precisely; but we are given no hint as to the mechanism which produced this automatic action all over Europe. The business of the official historian is not to inquire into causes but to present the sequence of events in a manner unintelligible to the philosopher but satisfying to the uninquiring mind of the general public.
That the European revolution of 1848 was the result of the Illuminati through the masonic organization cannot, however, be doubted by any one who takes the trouble to dig below the surface. We have already seen how Mazzini and the “Young Italy” movement had proved the blind instruments of the Haute Vente Romaine, and how the same society operating through the lodges had prepared the ground in every country.
In France the part played by Freemasonry in the revolutionary movement was quite frankly recognized, and the Supreme Council of the Scottish rite presenting themselves before the members of the Provisional Government on the 10th of March received the congratulations of Lamartine in these words: “I am convinced that it is from the depths of your lodges that have emanated, first in the shade, then in the half-light, and finally in the full light of day, the sentiments which ended by producing the sublime explosion we witnessed in 1789, and of which the people of Paris have just given to the world the second and, I hope, their last representation.” (Deschamps, ii, p. 282; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 156)
But, of course, the people were to be allowed to think they had acted on their own initiative. Thus the Jewish Freemason CrThetamieux, whom the Revolution had raised to a place in the Provisional Government, declared in a speech to the crowd that on the ruins of the shattered monarchy “the people took for the eternal symbol o revolution ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'”; (MThetamoires de Caussidi re, i, p. 131; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 156)
It was only to the Freemasons themselves; this time a deputation of the Grand Orient, on March 24, that he acknowledged the true origin of this device: “In all times and under all circumstances…Masonry ceaselessly repeated these sublime words: ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'” (Deschamps, ii, p. 283; World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 156)
What was said by Disraeli in 1876 can be applied to present world conditions: “The Governments of this country have to deal, not only with Governments, emperors, kings, and ministers, but also with secret societies, elements which must be taken into account, which at the last moment can bring all plans to naught, which have agents everywhere, agents without scruples, who incite assassinations and can, if necessary, lead a massacre.” And according to Disraeli men of the Jewish race were found at the head of every such political secret society. George Sand also wrote: “There are moments when the history of Empires only nominally exists, and when there is nothing really alive but the sects hidden within them.” The mother of all these secret societies is Judeo-Masonry, whose principles are identical with those realized with Revolution. As Claudio Jannet says: “It extends itself throughout the entire world, covering itself with mystery, acting in all parts of the social body…binding within it, by secret links, individual societies apparently most different. Its doctrines are everywhere the same; its unity, its universality thus explains the unity and universality of Revolution.”
As to the directing power, in the report of the Third Congress at Nancy, 1882, the orator, Knight Kadosch, believed that the last degrees carried on an International Masonic work of very great penetration, and that probably from there came those mysterious words which in the center of uprisings passed at times through the crowds, setting them on fire “for the good of humanity.”
This secret hierarchy was also said to be Rosicrucian, a kind of Third Order, such as the “Hidden Chiefs” of the Stella Matutina. Rene Guenon, orientalist, moreover explains in the Voile d’Isis, January 1933: “Even if certain of these organizations, among the most outside, find themselves in opposition to each other, that will in no way prevent the effective existence of unity of direction. To sum up, there is something comparable to the role played by different actors in the same play in a theater, and who, although opposed to each other none the less agree in the progress of the whole; each organization also plays the role to which it is destined; and this can extend also to the esoteric domain where the elements which fight against one another none the less all obey, although quite unconsciously and involuntarily, a single direction whose existence they do not even suspect.”
And as Henri Misley, who took an active part in Italy’s revolutions about 1830, said: “I know the world a little, and I know that in all this great future that is being prepared, there are only four or five who hold the cards. A greater number believe they old them, but the deceive themselves.”
Again, in the Congress at Nancy, 1882, it was said: “What force will not Masonry have upon the outside world, when around each lodge will exist a crowd of societies whose member, ten or fifteen times more numerous than the Masons, will receive inspiration and aim from the Masons, and will unit their efforts with our for the great work which we pursue. Within this circle once founded, one must perpetuate with care a nucleus of young Masons in such a way that the young people of the schools will find themselves directly subjected to Masonic influence.”
In the Convent, Grand Orient of France, 1923, it was resolved: “An active propaganda is urgent, so that Freemasonry shall again become the inspirer, the mistress of the ideas through which democracy is to be brought to perfection…To influence social elements by spreading widely the teaching received within the institution.”
Some of these elements were “sports societies, boy scouts, art circles, choral and instrumental groups. All organizations which attract Republican youth to works of education, physical and intellectual.”
But as Mazzini exclaimed: “The difficulty is not to convince people, some great words, liberty, rights of man, progress, equality, fraternity, despotism, privilege, tyranny and slavery, are sufficient for that; the difficulty is to unite them. The day when they are united will be the day of the new era.”
In La Temps de la Colere, M. Vallery-Radot, 1932, elucidates the methods: “What has been called the conquest of revolution is in reality only an implacable dogma affirmed by one party to the exclusion of all others …this party has known how to extend its conquests with admirable method, sometimes subterranean, as under the First Empire; sometimes combining infiltration with violent demonstration, as under the Restoration, the July Monarchy, the Republic of 1848; then again taking up its hidden intrigue under the Third Republic…This intangible general Will revealed to the world by a half-fool as the sacred emanation of an autonomous humanity, who has to render account to no one but itself, this general Will calls itself Democracy, Progress, Revolution, Republic, Humanity, Laicity, but it is always the same Power, which shares it with none, jealously guarded by its priests and doctors.”
And showing what may happen in the world if the nations do not awaken and realize the secret undermining force which is seeking the destruction of Christian civilization, he says: “There are in the tropics houses which appear solid, although slowly and surely the white ants are busy gnawing the internal structure. One day the inhabitants sit on the chairs, the chain to dust; they lean against the walls, and the walls crumble away. Thus it is with our civilization, of which we are so proud.”
The following is taken from an article by O. de Fremond, in the Revue Internationale des Societies Secretes, July 1, 1932: “Now, let us not forget, even in the opinion of the most optimistic, the people themselves are almost entirely de-Christianized…(Mercure de France April 1, 1932) And according to Cardinal Verdier: ‘Every day we see the number of Pagans increase.’…The causes…Without going back to the Renaissance or even to the Reform, which have both prepared the ground, we find as first cause the Revolution, called French, but in reality European, world even; the Revolution everywhere spreading nationalistic ideas and applying, more apparent than real, the false principles of the ‘Rights of Man’: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity …Let us not omit the Regency, which preceded by so little the Revolution. The great crisis, says Demolins in his Histoire de France, 1880, a propos the system of law, has had deplorable consequences: it developed above all in the higher classes, cupidity, craving for material powers, love of speculation; it displaced fortunes and rendered them unstable by detaching them from real estate in order to found them on the money-changing operations of the Bourse; it produced also in the organization of property and public fortune an upset which should soon contribute to the entire collapse of society. Where are we a half-century later?
The enormous material progress realized, thanks to the great discoveries of the nineteenth century and the leap they have still more made in the twentieth by bringing these discoveries to perfection; the new facilities of existence which flow from them instead of keeping people in admiration of such marvels, by reasonable use of them, in gratitude in short towards the Creator, upon whom they depend and who dispenses them to us, the people have, on the contrary, turned their backs upon religious practices and even on belief.
Does this movement act of itself spontaneously and because of human passions of pleasure and pride, etc.? No! For the great part, a power has intervened which has pushed the wheel more and more: that which, systematically, credits all to man, his sagacity, his power to bring to perfection, and thus substitutes him, gradually and almost imperceptibly, in place of the Divine Creator, suppressing at the same time all obligation towards Him. First indifference, then unbelief. The mixture of rationalist and materialist ideas…
It places all religions on the same equality: that is to say, recognizes no religion…What is the result? A society unbalanced and demoralized, where crimes abound, all the more so that the provocation of the Press more often remains unpunished, where general materialization accentuates itself day by day… From top to bottom of the social ladder there is no longer any but one motive, pleasure, but one agent, money…”
Is it not “the greater Judaism, gradually casting non-Jewish thoughts and systems into Jewish moulds.” as described in the Jewish World on February 9, 1883? Of which Karl Marx and Engles were only pawns. The image of Karl Marx as a “humanist” concerned with the plight of the underprivileged, the downtrodden and the “masses” is one which the Jews have carefully cultivated in the years since his death. The fact, however, are quite different.
(end of part 1)
http://www.aidd.org/societies/Illuminati7.htm
Blog Author- Mr Mars
Επιλεξτε να γινετε οι πρωτοι που θα εχετε προσβαση στην Πληροφορια του Stranger Voice
Greek